Getting at what we MEAN by “truth”

_{Denyse O'Leary

December 30, 2018

Intelligent Design, Philosophy, Science}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Yeah, truth. In an age when fishwraps claim to be telling us “The Truth” even while books are written about post-truth (Oxford’s Word of the Year 2016), a look at the different things people can mean does not come amiss.

J. R. Miller offers some guidance: “It seem like a simple questions, but when you start talking to people you realize we don’t all share the same answer:

“In fact, much of the conflict we find on social media is because not everyone defines “truth” in the same way. Let me share with you three competing views of truth:

The Epistemic theory of truth holds that truth is a relationship between a proposition and the criteria of the person’s mind. E.g. “What’s true for you may not be true for me.”
The Pragmatic theory of truth holds that truth is only that which is useful. E.g. “As long as it works for you…”
The Correspondence theory of truth holds that truth is a proposition which corresponds to reality. In this case (unlike the epistemic and pragmatic theories), truth is independent of human knowledge. (E.g. The statement, “The sky is blue” is true even for someone who is blind.)] J. R. Miller, “What do you accept as “truth”?” at More Than Cake “

See also: J. R. Miller on the social justice warriors

and

J. R. Miller on Darwinism, racism, and human zoos

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

Ed George has reading comprehension issues. Anything longer than a couple of sentences and Ed is lost.ET_{January 5, 2019
January
01
Jan
5
05
2019
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PDT}

EG, BA77 has actually put substantial and broadly relevant matters on the table. Oh, let's ignore and scroll by does not answer the issue. KFkairosfocus_{January 5, 2019
January
01
Jan
5
05
2019
07:51 AM
7
07
51
AM
PDT}

57, 58 and 59. “Read more” button. Please.Ed George_{January 3, 2019
January
01
Jan
3
03
2019
06:09 PM
6
06
09
PM
PDT}

We are living in a bacterial world, and it’s impacting us more than previously thought – February 15, 2013 Excerpt: We often associate bacteria with disease-causing “germs” or pathogens, and bacteria are responsible for many diseases, such as tuberculosis, bubonic plague, and MRSA infections. But bacteria do many good things, too, and the recent research underlines the fact that animal life would not be the same without them.,,, I am,, convinced that the number of beneficial microbes, even very necessary microbes, is much, much greater than the number of pathogens.” http://phys.org/news/2013-02-bacterial-world-impacting-previously-thought.html#ajTabs
Moreover, directly contrary to Darwin’s claim that “Natural selection cannot possibly produce any modification in any one species exclusively for the good of another species”, it is now known that “Microbial life can easily live without us; we, however, cannot survive without the global catalysis and environmental transformations it provides.”
The Microbial Engines That Drive Earth’s Biogeochemical Cycles – Paul G. Falkowski – 2008 Excerpt: Microbial life can easily live without us; we, however, cannot survive without the global catalysis and environmental transformations it provides. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.474.2161&rep=rep1&type=pdf – Paul G. Falkowski is Professor Geological Sciences at Rutgers
As well, in the following article Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig reveals that “in thousands of plant species often entirely new organs have been formed for the exclusive good of more than 132,930 other species.”
Plant Galls and Evolution How More than Twelve Thousand1 Ugly Facts are Slaying a Beautiful Hypothesis: Darwinism2 Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig – 7 September 2017 Excerpt: in the case of the galls, in thousands of plant species often entirely new organs have been formed for the exclusive good of more than 132,930 other species, these ‘ugly facts’ have annihilated Darwin’s theory as well as the modern versions of it. The galls are not ‘useful to the possessor’, the plants. There is no space for these phenomena in the world of “the selfish gene” (Dawkins). Moreover, the same conclusion appears to be true for thousands of angiosperm species producing deceptive flowers (in contrast to gall formations, now for the exclusive good of the plant species) – a topic which should be carefully treated in another paper. http://www.weloennig.de/PlantGalls.pdf
Moreover, to dive a little bit deeper, the falsification of this ‘survival of the fittest’, i.e. ‘selfish’, thinking occurs at the molecular level too. The ‘selfish gene’ concept is more of less directly based on Darwin’s own ‘survival of the fittest’ thinking about competition. Yet genes are now found to be anything but selfish. Instead of 'selfish', genes are now found to be existing in a holistic web of mutual interdependence and cooperation (the antithesis of selfishness).
What If (Almost) Every Gene Affects (Almost) Everything? – JUN 16, 2017 Excerpt: If you told a modern geneticist that a complex trait—whether a physical characteristic like height or weight, or the risk of a disease like cancer or schizophrenia—was the work of just 15 genes, they’d probably laugh. It’s now thought that such traits are the work of thousands of genetic variants, working in concert. The vast majority of them have only tiny effects, but together, they can dramatically shape our bodies and our health. They’re weak individually, but powerful en masse. https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/06/its-like-all-connected-man/530532/ Theory Suggests That All Genes Affect Every Complex Trait – June 20, 2018 Excerpt: Mutations of a single gene are behind sickle cell anemia, for instance, and mutations in another are behind cystic fibrosis. But unfortunately for those who like things simple, these conditions are the exceptions. The roots of many traits, from how tall you are to your susceptibility to schizophrenia, are far more tangled. In fact, they may be so complex that almost the entire genome may be involved in some way,,, One very early genetic mapping study in 1999 suggested that “a large number of loci (perhaps > than 15)” might contribute to autism risk, recalled Jonathan Pritchard, now a geneticist at Stanford University. “That’s a lot!” he remembered thinking when the paper came out. Over the years, however, what scientists might consider “a lot” in this context has quietly inflated. Last June, Pritchard and his Stanford colleagues Evan Boyle and Yang Li (now at the University of Chicago) published a paper about this in Cell that immediately sparked controversy, although it also had many people nodding in cautious agreement. The authors described what they called the “omnigenic” model of complex traits. Drawing on GWAS analyses of three diseases, they concluded that in the cell types that are relevant to a disease, it appears that not 15, not 100, but essentially all genes contribute to the condition. The authors suggested that for some traits, “multiple” loci could mean more than 100,000. https://www.quantamagazine.org/omnigenic-model-suggests-that-all-genes-affect-every-complex-trait-20180620/ Gene Pleiotropy Roadblocks Evolution by Jeffrey P. Tomkins, Ph.D. – Dec. 8, 2016 Excerpt: Before the advent of modern molecular biology, scientists defined a gene as a single unit of inheritance. If a gene was found to influence multiple externally visible traits, it was said to be pleiotropic—a term first used in 1910.2 During this early period of genetic discovery, pleiotropy was considered to be quite rare because scientists assumed most genes only possessed a single function—a simplistic idea that remained popular throughout most of the 20th century. However, as our understanding of genetics grew through DNA science, it became clear that genes operate in complex interconnected networks. Furthermore, individual genes produce multiple variants of end products with different effects through a variety of intricate mechanisms.2,3 Taken together, these discoveries show that pleiotropy is a common feature of nearly every gene.,,, The pleiotropy evolution problem is widely known among secular geneticists, but rarely discussed in the popular media. In this new research report, the authors state, “Many studies have provided evidence for the ability of pleiotropy to constrain gene evolution.”,,, “Our study provided supportive evidence that pleiotropy constraints the evolution of transcription factors (Tfs).”,,, The authors state, “We showed that highly pleiotropic genes are more likely to be associated with a disease phenotype.”,,, http://www.icr.org/article/9747
Such 'holistic cooperation' is, needless to say, the exact polar opposite of being ‘selfish’. (And should, if Darwinism were a normal science instead of being basically a religion for atheists, count as a direct falsification of the theory). Even Shapiro himself, who shuns Intelligent Design, admits that “the ‘Gene’ Concept Holds Back Evolutionary Thinking”. and further states that “The modern concept of the genome has no basic units. It has literally become “systems all the way down.”
Why the ‘Gene’ Concept Holds Back Evolutionary Thinking – James Shapiro – 11/30/2012 Excerpt: The Century of the Gene. In a 1948 Scientific American article, soon-to-be Nobel Laureate George Beadle wrote: “genes are the basic units of all living things.”,,, This notion of the genome as a collection of discrete gene units prevailed when the neo-Darwinian “Modern Synthesis” emerged in the pre-DNA 1940s. Some prominent theorists even proposed that evolution could be defined simply as a change over time in the frequencies of different gene forms in a population.,,, The basic issue is that molecular genetics has made it impossible to provide a consistent, or even useful, definition of the term “gene.” In March 2009, I attended a workshop at the Santa Fe Institute entitled “Complexity of the Gene Concept.” Although we had a lot of smart people around the table, we failed as a group to agree on a clear meaning for the term. The modern concept of the genome has no basic units. It has literally become “systems all the way down.” There are piecemeal coding sequences, expression signals, splicing signals, regulatory signals, epigenetic formatting signals, and many other “DNA elements” (to use the neutral ENCODE terminology) that participate in the multiple functions involved in genome expression, replication, transmission, repair and evolution.,,, Conventional thinkers may claim that molecular data only add details to a well-established evolutionary paradigm. But the diehard defenders of orthodoxy in evolutionary biology are grievously mistaken in their stubbornness. DNA and molecular genetics have brought us to a fundamentally new conceptual understanding of genomes, how they are organized and how they function. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-a-shapiro/why-the-gene-concept-hold_b_2207245.html
Moreover, on top of all that, if anything ever went against Darwin’s claim that “Natural selection cannot possibly produce any modification in any one species exclusively for the good of another species”, it is the notion that a single cell somehow became tens of trillions of cells that cooperate “exclusively for the good of other cells” in a single organism for the singular purpose of keeping that single organism alive. To claim that one cell transforming into the tens of trillions cells, (of extremely cooperative, even altruistic, cells that make up our ONE human body), is anything less than a miracle is either sheer arrogance or profound ignorance (perhaps both).
One Body – animation – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDMLq6eqEM4 Mathematician Alexander Tsiaras on Human Development: “It’s a Mystery, It’s Magic, It’s Divinity” – March 2012 Excerpt: ‘The magic of the mechanisms inside each genetic structure saying exactly where that nerve cell should go, the complexity of these, the mathematical models on how these things are indeed done, are beyond human comprehension. Even though I am a mathematician, I look at this with the marvel of how do these instruction sets not make these mistakes as they build what is us. It’s a mystery, it’s magic, it’s divinity.’ http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/03/mathematician_a057741.html
Thus in conclusion, steveh and his buddy Ed G can ignore my references all they want, (it just further proves their intellectual dishonesty when they refuse to honestly address the evidence), but as the unbiased reader can now clearly see, the claim that Darwinian evolution can produce altruistic morality of any sort is directly contradicted by the empirical evidence at every turn. One final note, Objective Morality can only be realistically grounded within Theism, and I would further argue that the 'noblest morality' of all, to be found within any particular Theistic worldview, is to be found within Christian Theism specifically:
Romans 5:8 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
bornagain77_{January 3, 2019
January
01
Jan
3
03
2019
05:25 PM
5
05
25
PM
PDT}

Some of my references that steveh tried to hand wave off were:
Since unguided Darwinian processes have never shown the origination of a even a single gene and/or protein, as these following references show,,,
Stephen Meyer (and Doug Axe) Critique Richard Dawkins’s “Mount Improbable” – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rgainpMXa8 Yockey and a Calculator Versus Evolutionists – Cornelius Hunter PhD – September 25, 2015 Excerpt: In a 1977 paper published in the Journal of Theoretical Biology, Hubert Yockey used information theory to evaluate the likelihood of the evolution of a relatively simple protein.,,, Yockey found that the probability of evolution finding the cytochrome c protein sequence is about one in 10^64. That is a one followed by 64 zeros—an astronomically large number. He concluded in the peer-reviewed paper that the belief that proteins appeared spontaneously “is based on faith.” Indeed, Yockey’s early findings are in line with, though a bit more conservative than, later findings. A 1990 study of a small, simple protein found that 10^63 attempts would be required for evolution to find the protein. A 2004 study found that 10^64 to 10^77 attempts are required, and a 2006 study concluded that 10^70 attempts would be required. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2015/09/yockey-and-calculator-versus.html Dan S. Tawfik Group – The New View of Proteins – Tyler Hampton – 2016 Excerpt: Tawfik soberly recognizes the problem. The appearance of early protein families, he has remarked, is “something like close to a miracle.”45,,, “In fact, to our knowledge,” Tawfik and Tóth-Petróczy write, “no macromutations … that gave birth to novel proteins have yet been identified.”69 http://inference-review.com/article/the-new-view-of-proteins
,,, Since unguided Darwinian processes have never shown the origination of a even a single gene and/or protein,,, then it is very interesting to note that the gene expression of humans are designed in a very sophisticated way so as to differentiate between hedonic moral happiness and ‘noble’ moral happiness: The following paper states that there are hidden costs of purely hedonic well-being.,, “At the cellular level, our bodies appear to respond better to a different kind of well-being, one based on a sense of connectedness and purpose.”
Human Cells Respond in Healthy, Unhealthy Ways to Different Kinds of Happiness – July 29, 2013 Excerpt: Human bodies recognize at the molecular level that not all happiness is created equal, responding in ways that can help or hinder physical health,,, The sense of well-being derived from “a noble purpose” may provide cellular health benefits, whereas “simple self-gratification” may have negative effects, despite an overall perceived sense of happiness, researchers found.,,, But if all happiness is created equal, and equally opposite to ill-being, then patterns of gene expression should be the same regardless of hedonic or eudaimonic well-being. Not so, found the researchers. Eudaimonic well-being was, indeed, associated with a significant decrease in the stress-related CTRA gene expression profile. In contrast, hedonic well-being was associated with a significant increase in the CTRA profile. Their genomics-based analyses, the authors reported, reveal the hidden costs of purely hedonic well-being.,, “We can make ourselves happy through simple pleasures, but those ‘empty calories’ don’t help us broaden our awareness or build our capacity in ways that benefit us physically,” she said. “At the cellular level, our bodies appear to respond better to a different kind of well-being, one based on a sense of connectedness and purpose.” http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130729161952.htm

To add to those references that steveh tried to hand wave off as if they were of no real consequence, and to further prove my point that Darwinian processes are totally incapable of producing such a nuanced pattern for 'morally noble' gene expression, I will ask a simple question. Where is love, empathy, and altruism to be found in Darwin’s ‘survival of the fittest’ maxim?
“One general law, leading to the advancement of all organic beings, namely, multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die.” – Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species
Morally noble altruistic behavior of any type is simply completely antithetical to Darwin’s 'survival of the fittest' theory. In fact, Darwin himself offered this following ‘anti-altruism’ standard as a falsification criteria for his theory, “Natural selection cannot possibly produce any modification in any one species exclusively for the good of another species”… and even stated that “If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.”
“Natural selection cannot possibly produce any modification in any one species exclusively for the good of another species; though throughout nature one species incessantly takes advantage of, and profits by, the structure of another. But natural selection can and does often produce structures for the direct injury of other species, as we see in the fang of the adder, and in the ovipositor of the ichneumon, by which its eggs are deposited in the living bodies of other insects. If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.” – Charles Darwin – Origin of Species http://darwin-online.org.uk/Variorum/1866/1866-241-c-1859.html
But to drive Darwin's point further home, If evolution by natural selection were actually the truth about how all life came to be on Earth then the only life that should be around should be extremely small organisms with the highest replication rate, and with the most ‘mutational firepower’, since only they, (since they greatly outclass multi-cellular organism in terms of ‘reproductive success’ and ‘mutational firepower’), would be fittest to survive in the dog eat dog world where blind pitiless evolution ruled and only the fittest are allowed to survive. The logic of this is nicely summed up here in this following Richard Dawkins’ video:
Richard Dawkins interview with a ‘Darwinian’ physician goes off track – video Excerpt: “I am amazed, Richard, that what we call metazoans, multi-celled organisms, have actually been able to evolve, and the reason [for amazement] is that bacteria and viruses replicate so quickly — a few hours sometimes, they can reproduce themselves — that they can evolve very, very quickly. And we’re stuck with twenty years at least between generations. How is it that we resist infection when they can evolve so quickly to find ways around our defenses?” http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/video_to_dawkin062031.html
In other words, since successful reproduction is all that really matters on a neo-Darwinian view of things, how can anything but successful, and highly efficient reproduction, be realistically ‘selected’ for? Darwin himself stated, “every single organic being around us may be said to be striving to the utmost to increase in numbers;”
“every single organic being around us may be said to be striving to the utmost to increase in numbers;” – Charles Darwin – Origin of Species – pg. 66
The logic of natural selection is nicely and simply illustrated on the following graph:
The Logic of Natural Selection – graph http://recticulatedgiraffe.weebly.com/uploads/4/0/6/2/40627097/1189735.jpg?308
As you can see, any other function besides successful reproduction, such as much slower sexual reproduction, sight, hearing, abstract thinking, and especially altruism, would be highly superfluous to the primary criteria of successful reproduction, and should, on a Darwinian view, be discarded, and/or ‘eaten’, by bacteria, as so much excess baggage since it obviously would slow down successful reproduction. Yet, contrary to this central ‘survival of the fittest’ assumption of Darwinian evolution, instead of eating us, time after time we find micro-organisms helping each other, and us, in ways that have nothing to with their own ‘survival of the fittest’’ concerns. The following researchers said they were ‘banging our heads against the wall’ by the contradictory findings to Darwinian ‘survival of the fittest’ thinking that they had found:
Doubting Darwin: Algae Findings Surprise Scientists – April 28, 2014 Excerpt: One of Charles Darwin’s hypotheses posits that closely related species will compete for food and other resources more strongly with one another than with distant relatives, because they occupy similar ecological niches. Most biologists long have accepted this to be true. Thus, three researchers were more than a little shaken to find that their experiments on fresh water green algae failed to support Darwin’s theory — at least in one case. “It was completely unexpected,” says Bradley Cardinale, associate professor in the University of Michigan’s school of natural resources & environment. “When we saw the results, we said ‘this can’t be.”‘ We sat there banging our heads against the wall. Darwin’s hypothesis has been with us for so long, how can it not be right?” The researchers ,,,— were so uncomfortable with their results that they spent the next several months trying to disprove their own work. But the research held up.,,, The scientists did not set out to disprove Darwin, but, in fact, to learn more about the genetic and ecological uniqueness of fresh water green algae so they could provide conservationists with useful data for decision-making. “We went into it assuming Darwin to be right, and expecting to come up with some real numbers for conservationists,” Cardinale says. “When we started coming up with numbers that showed he wasn’t right, we were completely baffled.”,,, Darwin “was obsessed with competition,” Cardinale says. “He assumed the whole world was composed of species competing with each other, but we found that one-third of the species of algae we studied actually like each other. They don’t grow as well unless you put them with another species. It may be that nature has a heck of a lot more mutualisms than we ever expected. “,,, Maybe Darwin’s presumption that the world may be dominated by competition is wrong.” http://www.livescience.com/45205-data-dont-back-up-darwin-in-algae-study-nsf-bts.html
And again, directly contrary to the central ‘survival of the fittest’ assumption of Darwinian evolution, we find that bacteria are also directly helping us in essential ways that have nothing to do with their own survival of the fittest concerns:
NIH Human Microbiome Project defines normal bacterial makeup of the body – June 13, 2012 Excerpt: Microbes inhabit just about every part of the human body, living on the skin, in the gut, and up the nose. Sometimes they cause sickness, but most of the time, microorganisms live in harmony with their human hosts, providing vital functions essential for human survival. http://www.nih.gov/news/health/jun2012/nhgri-13.htm
bornagain77_{January 3, 2019
January
01
Jan
3
03
2019
05:24 PM
5
05
24
PM
PDT}

deletebornagain77_{January 3, 2019
January
01
Jan
3
03
2019
05:20 PM
5
05
20
PM
PDT}

steve_h at 51: This was my question: "You believe the Holocaust was evil. Is it possible for someone to disagree with you and be correct?" It is a really simple question that can be answered as follows: (1) "Yes, it is possible for someone to disagree with me and be correct" or (2) "No, it is not possible for someone to disagree with me and be correct." You see, steve, possibility is a discrete function. That means something is either possible or it is not possible. Everyone watched you twist yourself into knots trying to avoid either (1) or (2). I don't blame you really. If you choose (1), you are obviously wrong and a moral monster to boot. If you choose (2), you have to give up your subjective relativism. That's enough. Knowing that you will never answer is answer enough. Thanks for playing. Oh, by the way, if my metaphysics forced me to avoid answering a simple question in a straightforward way, I think I might reconsider my metaphysics. That's just me though.Barry Arrington_{January 3, 2019
January
01
Jan
3
03
2019
04:08 PM
4
04
08
PM
PDT}

Steve_h
It doesn’t matter. I am happy to be out of this conversation, to return to scrolling past your comments and not to have been beaten to a pulp in your basement. Congratulations on your victory and goodbye.
Makes the”read more” button look more appealing, doesn’t it? :)Ed George_{January 3, 2019
January
01
Jan
3
03
2019
03:00 PM
3
03
00
PM
PDT}

Thanks for your help in proving my point that you got nothing.
You're welcome. For what it's worth I only skimmed through your posts and mainly saw quotes that were about "molecules in motion" rather than absolute morality; what appeared to be an attempt to out me (incorrectly) as a homosexual; something about the origin of genes and proteins; the mental consequences of atheism; the body knowing about your decisions before your mind; absolute morality and morality being used interchangably and some stuff about meaning and the usual quantum woo. It doesn't matter. I am happy to be out of this conversation, to return to scrolling past your comments and not to have been beaten to a pulp in your basement. Congratulations on your victory and goodbye.steve_h_{January 3, 2019
January
01
Jan
3
03
2019
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PDT}

If we are truly honest about it, all we can say about the existance of objective moral truths is that we hope that they exist, but we don’t know for sure.Ed George_{January 3, 2019
January
01
Jan
3
03
2019
02:26 PM
2
02
26
PM
PDT}

steve, I'm quite comfortable that the unbiased reader will be able to clearly see that you have not even begun to adequately address my points in posts 32 and 33 on either the philosophical or empirical level. Thanks for your help in proving my point that you got nothing.bornagain77_{January 3, 2019
January
01
Jan
3
03
2019
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT}

BA77
The blindingly obvious point you missed is that NOBODY, especially including the atheist himself, acts as if there were no absolute moral standard.
Yes, you already said, and I still disagree. I don't know how the arrangement of our molucules allows us to think and feel things but it's clear that we can. Given that we do feel pain and seem hard-wired (possibly by evolution) to want to avoid pain and death are that we are also able to reason, I don't see any reason why we might not come up with own conventions to help us avoid those things. Other animals also seem to try to avoid pain and/or death and they can't all have learned it at Sunday school. BA77
So in your view you are free to admit to an absolute moral standard but deny that such a thing exists? Rationalize much?
At no point have I written (or admitted) that there is an absolute moral standard. Perhaps that was your interpretation of some things I wrote about my personal beliefs. My beliefs are just my beliefs (I wouldn't characterise them as "mere" as I have put some effort into formulating them and it's amazing that anyone can do this, but they are in no way binding on other Humans and/or the universe in general) BA
Everyone noticed that you refused to state whether it is possible for someone to disagree with you and be correct. I will ask one more time. You believe the Holocaust was evil. Is it possible for someone to disagree with you and be correct?
Sorry Barry, but do you want me to tell you whether the external absolute moral standard says that the person could be correct or if my own personal belief system says that? Or are you hoping to switch after I've given you the answer? Maybe you hope that nobody will notice you trying the same scam on the same thread where I explained how I thought it was dishonest - and even you have indicated that your ploy is to try to make the other person "appear" to be stupid or evil. I will answer the question separately for each interpretation as I see it. 1) Does the external objective moral standard assert that the person is wrong? I don't know, but my belief is there is no such external objective standard to assert anything. However, if there was such a thing, I would fully both want and expect it to state that the Holocaust and its defender were wrong. Furthermore, if I was asked to contribute to such a list, "The Holocaust was wrong" would be one of the first things I would add to it if were not there already. I would also add " and no matter who did it (anticipating Barry's next move) or when (even if it was a long time ago)" And I would hope that anyone else would answer in a similar way. Now Barry will use his keen legal mind to analyse that and somehow conclude that I approve of the Holocaust. 2) Do I personally believe that the someone can think that the Holocaust was ok and be correct? Within my belief system the Holocaust is about the wrongest thing there is - the person could not be more wrong about anything and I am the world authority on what my belief system says. However, my belief system is not external and objective. Barry will be the first to tell you that he thinks my beliefs are worthless, my definition is full of holes and that I get it wrong about absolutely everything except for Holocausts and Baby Torture. My guess is that Barry's take home from that will be "Steve secretly bases his beliefs on Barry^W God's own external objective morality".steve_h_{January 3, 2019
January
01
Jan
3
03
2019
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT}

Ed George:
Strange, that you made this comment in a comment to me #31, for your reference.
Yes and the CONTEXT was my discussion with steve_h.ET_{January 3, 2019
January
01
Jan
3
03
2019
05:49 AM
5
05
49
AM
PDT}

Sev, Let me just clip-comment for the rest of your comment at 44, bearing in mind that the focus here is on getting at what truth is: >> [KF,] 4] Fourth, we are objectively under obligation of OUGHT. That is, despite any particular person’s (or group’s or august council’s or majority’s) wishes or claims to the contrary, such obligation credibly holds to moral certainty. That is, it would be irresponsible, foolish and unwise for us to act and try to live otherwise. Or we could take the pragmatic view that members of a society find that certain behaviors and attitudes are beneficial to their society >> 1 --> for centuries, that enslaving some people provides general benefits and that it is especially handy if they have clear racial markers of their status? 2 --> That is, we see here the implication of cultural relativism, that the would-be reformer is automatically in the wrong. >> and that there is a practical advantage to all in observing them>> 3 --> All, or all who have enough power to count? (I point to the slippery slope reality at work.) 5] Fifth, this cumulative framework of moral government under OUGHT is the basis for the manifest core principles of the natural moral law under which we find ourselves obligated to the right the good, the true etc. Where also, patently, we struggle to live up to what we acknowledge or imply we ought to do. Do we need the assumption of some natural moral law – for which we have no compelling evidence>> 4 --> This slips in the selective hyperskepticism fallacy. Sorry, you do not get a skeptic's veto esp. on a matter where your case must pivot on our acknowledging duties to truth, right reason, fairness etc. >> – or does what we might call enlightened self- and social-interest suffice?>> 5 --> See the morally freighted terms "enlightened" and "interest" along with the hint of obligation to do good by neighbour? >> 6] Sixth, this means we live in a world in which being under core, generally understood principles of natural moral law is coherent and factually adequate, thus calling for a world-understanding in which OUGHT is properly grounded at root level. So the real reason for presuming a natural moral law is to provide an IS in which to ground all OUGHTS which could not otherwise be so grounded?>> 6 --> Cart before the horse, multiplied by prejudice against theism. 7 --> We find that argument and reasoning are inextricably entangled with generally acknowledged, implicit duties to truth, right reason, fairness etc. This requires a search for how that unity could ever come about. 8 --> Post Hume, that can only be at world root. That is, we need the inherently good as the IS at world root, to have a world in which reason is not inextricably entangled with a grand delusional perception of meaningless duty. 9 --> I/l/o possible worlds perspective that IS needs to be necessary (independent of other beings . . . this is the root of reality) and present in the fabric for any world to be. Linked, maximally great (or else not the root). 10 --> This leads to a fairly familiar being, one who is most unwelcome in today's radically secularist and angrily anti-Christian age. >> 7] Seventh, in light of the above, even the weakest and most voiceless of us thus has a natural right to life, liberty, the pursuit of fulfillment of one’s sense of what s/he ought to be (“happiness”). This includes the young child, the unborn and more An avalanche does not recognize a human right to life, a bolt of lightning does not recognize a human right to life, a volcano does not recognize a human right to life. >> 11 --> Notice, how you resorted to entities that are inanimate, lacking minds and thus lacking moral government? 12 --> A clue. >>As far as we can tell, only human beings acknowledge a human right to life and then try to argue an added authority for it by claiming the existence of a natural moral law in which such rights are grounded.>> 13 --> Cart before horse again. We recognise a right to life because we are inescapably morally governed and recognise that others who share the like nature must also be respected. >> 8] Eighth, like unto the seventh, such may only be circumscribed or limited for good cause. Such as, reciprocal obligation to cherish and not harm neighbour of equal, equally valuable nature in community and in the wider world of the common brotherhood of humanity. If that’s a roundabout way of saying that what are agreed to be universal human rights should not be lightly or easily abridged or repealed then I would agree.>> 14 --> Notice, imposition of cultural norming? And, where that goes? >> 9] Ninth, this is the context in which it becomes self evidently wrong, wicked and evil to kidnap, sexually torture and murder a young child or the like as concrete cases in point that show that might and/or manipulation do not make ‘right,’ ‘truth,’ ‘worth,’ ‘justice,’ ‘fairness,’ ‘law’ etc. That is, anything that expresses or implies the nihilist’s credo is morally absurd I do not advocate or defend nihilism. However, I am always suspicious of any invocation of self-evidence as it seems to me it is all too often both a maneuver to avoid providing adequate warrant or justification for a claim>> 15 --> Do you not see that some things are so pervasive and undeniably so on pain of absurdity that we CANNOT warrant them, they are going to be embedded in any attempted warrant? 16 --> Distinct identity thus LOI, LNC and LEM are clear cases in point, just think of how impossible our exchange would be apart from the distinct identity of alphanumerical characters. >> and a way of implying some objective basis for a moral claim.>> 17 --> Cart before the horse, you clearly imply that there can be no warrant beyond subjective opinion (and community "agreement" however arrived at) for moral claims. But in fact apart from duties to truth, right reason, fairness etc, there can be no basis for reasoning responsibly thus objectively. 18 --> Objective also impliues that some truths are warranted independent of individual or community-dominant opinion. 19 --> The very notion, warrant, reeks of morally tinged justification. >>We all agree that the torture and murder of a young child is one of the most abhorrent, wicked, evil acts imaginable. >> 20 --> notice, agreement vs warrant. >>We also know that there are some other species in which the adults will, on occasion, kill and even eat the young. But while we might find that shocking and disgusting, we don’t judge it to be wicked or evil. >> 21 --> Precisely because we understand that such creatures are not responsibly and rationally free, thus morally governed. And, we do not ever want our society to go there. 22 --> Hence the horror that greeted the presence of cannibalism in the Pacific islands. >>Following from that, is it too much of a stretch to envisage some highly-advanced alien race that would look upon the torture and murder of a human child with the same detachment as we look upon the behaviors of other animals?>> 23 --> Such aliens would be rejecting our responsible, rationally free, morally governed nature; hence, War of the Worlds in its opening passage, hence the Kzinti and the invading dragon-like or spider-like creatures in much of sci fi. 24 --> Thus, such aliens (and those who have pretended to be a master-race or a superman elite class) show themselves morally defective. >>In other words, what is self-evident to us may not be so to others so are we justified in calling it self-evident?>> 25 --> Descent to and even clinging to absurdity does not remove self-evidence, it just shows how grossly warped some can be. >> 10] Tenth, this entails that in civil society with government, justice is a principal task of legitimate government. In short, nihilistic will to power untempered by the primacy of justice is its own refutation in any type of state. Where, justice is the due balance of rights, freedoms and responsibilities. The proper duty of government is to protect and uphold the interests and well-being of all the governed, which includes the provision of a fair and impartial system of justice.>> 26 --> You recognise the primacy of justice >> 11] Eleventh, that government is and ought to be subject to audit, reformation and if necessary replacement should it fail sufficiently badly and incorrigibly. Agreed>> 27 --> Again. >> 12] Twelfth, the attempt to deny or dismiss such a general framework of moral governance invariably lands in shipwreck of incoherence and absurdity. As, has been seen in outline. But that does not mean that the attempt is not going to be made, so there is a mutual obligation of frank and fair correction and restraint of evil. The problem is not over the value of a “general framework of moral governance” but over the source, >> 28 --> source or root is the heart of the structure of such a framework. >>legitimacy and authority of such a framework.>> 29 --> Legitimacy and authority are morally entangled. Self evidence surfaces again. >> Is it something we can and do create for ourselves as the potential subjects of such a framework or is it something that has to be outsourced to some other being or authority because some have such a low opinion of humanity as to believe we are not capable of such a thing ourselves?>> 30 --> We are no more capable of escaping moral government than we are of escaping the force of the principle of distinct identity and its corollaries, LOI, LNC, LEM, Number etc. KFkairosfocus_{January 3, 2019
January
01
Jan
3
03
2019
03:35 AM
3
03
35
AM
PDT}

Sev, I headlined the first part of our exchange, here: https://uncommondescent.com/logic-and-first-principles-of-right-reason/logic-and-first-principles-6-reason-rationality-and-responsibility-i-e-moral-government-are-inextricably-entangled/ KFkairosfocus_{January 3, 2019
January
01
Jan
3
03
2019
02:50 AM
2
02
50
AM
PDT}

Sev, 44. Notice, how you inadvertently inserted a presumption that shifted the goal-posts? That's a signature of a worldview driving conclusions. So, back to first principles: self-evidence is about start-points for warrant, in effect asking where is it that we are forced to accept premises antecedent to onward warrant, on which warrant builds. Thus, the concept that we come to the question with world-experiences and as going concern thinkers. Warrant cannot be chained forever or go in futile circles, so are there yardsticks that are naturally present? Yes, there are things which (once we understand) we see are so, are necessarily so and are necessarily so on pain pf patent, immediate absurdity on the attempted denial. That is, some sort of self-defeating explosion happens if we try to deny them. Notice, that is broader than self-referential incoherence, precisely because we need something broader than that case, to operate in the world as responsible, rational thinkers. For example, the project of responsible persuasive argument presumes known duty to truth, right reason, fairness etc. Try the denial of such duties and you reduce reasoned discussion to nihilistic, cynical manipulation by the more clever and ruthless, utterly corroding the fabric of society and undermining human thriving. Explosion. In a world of message dominance by irresponsible manipulation, there is no basis for reasonable discussion, only for suspicion and polarisation. (Resemblance to current political discourse and the media across our civilisation is NOT coincidental.) This immediately means that rational life is inextricably entangled with moral duties, the responsibility that we have mentioned. Now, that is not a proof, but it is a test of insight and good sense, AKA wisdom. Let us come back to moral SET 1 (and 2): moral government attested to by the inner witness of conscience. The testimony of conscience to duties violated or sometimes to duties fulfilled even at terrible cost, is an integral aspect of our conscious self-awareness. We cannot effectively deny its presence or influence in general, and for cause regard those with deadened or defective consciences as monstrous or at least severely damaged. It cannot be denied, it is a commonplace of our common experience of the world. And, it is inextricably entangled with our rational enterprises as they pivot on known, acknowledged, expected conscious (and sub conscious) awareness of duties to truth and right reason, fairness etc. Acknowledging this is a necessary start point for not only reasoning on moral subjects but on general topics. Where, of course, conscience is a testimony not a legislator. We also know that it can be dulled or deadened, or even overly sensitive. The roots of duty lie elsewhere. And post-Hume we know that elsewhere must only lie at the world-root or else we face fatal groundlessness, including for our project of collective reasoning and knowledge-building through adequate warrant. Conscience is indeed a first and self-evident moral truth. KFkairosfocus_{January 3, 2019
January
01
Jan
3
03
2019
01:50 AM
1
01
50
AM
PDT}

ET: That said, there aren’t any such gifts with respect to materialism.
EG: Non-sequitur, as I am not a materialist.
ET: Steve- the context was my discussion with STEVE.
.

Strange, that you made this comment in a comment to me #31, for your reference. Just scroll up several thousand words through BA77’s comments. You should be able to find it. :)Ed George_{January 2, 2019
January
01
Jan
2
02
2019
09:14 PM
9
09
14
PM
PDT}

Ed, you have it all wrong, as usual
I generally consider things to be evil if they involve deliberate harm or death.
A reasonable statement.
Not coming from a materialist, such as steve. It is all nature doing what nature does.
Most likely only because you were brought up in a like-minded society- a society founded on the principles of one of the major world religions
Another reasonable statement, but not supported with any evidence.
It's well supported by the evidence. The bulk of the world's population was and is still religious. Then you went off:
That assumes that we were not gifted the ability to reason for ourselves and make informed decisions.
Which I showed to be total nonsense. You don't get to tell me what I am saying, duh
If we could reason for ourselves and make informed decisions, regardless of how we were brought up, is it not also likely that we would, on average, make decisions that were good for society?
No. And what is allegedly good for society may not be good for the people. The Nazi's thought they were helping society- Mau, Pol Pot, Stalin- all thought they were helping society. Clearly you didn't think that one through
Quite the contrary. It assumes that because we are gifted with the ability to reason for ourselves and make informed decisions, that living organisms were intelligently designed and as such worthy of respect. Which would mean taking of a life should only be done after careful consideration.
Which is where your circular argument surfaced. If we were gifted with these capabilities, of course we were designed. That was implicit in my earlier statement.
That wasn't the argument. What is wrong with you? The argument is because we were so gifted that living organisms are worthy of respect. Which would mean taking of a life should only be done after careful consideration
That said, there aren’t any such gifts with respect to materialism.
Non-sequitur, as I am not a materialist.
Steve- the context was my discussion with STEVE.ET_{January 2, 2019
January
01
Jan
2
02
2019
07:39 PM
7
07
39
PM
PDT}

Kairosfocus @ 19 We've been over this ground before but "Once more unto the breach..."
1] The first self evident moral truth is that we are inescapably under the government of ought.
I think the concept of self-evident truths outside formal systems like mathematics or logic is problematical but, regardless, since my view is that moral claims can be neither true nor false there can be no self-evident moral truths. This does not preclude the possibility that there are acts, such as the rape and murder of a child, which almost everyone can agree is most egregiously immoral. You can say it is self-evidently immoral to us but is it self-evident in any universal sense?
2] Second self evident truth, we discern that some things are right and others are wrong by a compass-sense we term conscience which guides our thought. (Again, objectors depend on a sense of guilt/ urgency to be right not wrong on our part to give their points persuasive force.
We certainly observe that in most if not all human societies codes of what is acceptable behavior emerge which people feel compelled to live by and which they feel bad about when they don't observe.
3] Third, were this sense of conscience and linked sense that we can make responsibly free, rational decisions to be a delusion, we would at once descend into a status of grand delusion in which there is no good ground for confidence in our self-understanding.
It would only be delusional if there were an insistence that the sense of conscience were a manifestation of some natural moral law for which we could find no objective evidence.
4] Fourth, we are objectively under obligation of OUGHT. That is, despite any particular person’s (or group’s or august council’s or majority’s) wishes or claims to the contrary, such obligation credibly holds to moral certainty. That is, it would be irresponsible, foolish and unwise for us to act and try to live otherwise.
Or we could take the pragmatic view that members of a society find that certain behaviors and attitudes are beneficial to their society and that there is a practical advantage to all in observing them
5] Fifth, this cumulative framework of moral government under OUGHT is the basis for the manifest core principles of the natural moral law under which we find ourselves obligated to the right the good, the true etc. Where also, patently, we struggle to live up to what we acknowledge or imply we ought to do.
Do we need the assumption of some natural moral law - for which we have no compelling evidence - or does what we might call enlightened self- and social-interest suffice?
6] Sixth, this means we live in a world in which being under core, generally understood principles of natural moral law is coherent and factually adequate, thus calling for a world-understanding in which OUGHT is properly grounded at root level.
So the real reason for presuming a natural moral law is to provide an IS in which to ground all OUGHTS which could not otherwise be so grounded?
7] Seventh, in light of the above, even the weakest and most voiceless of us thus has a natural right to life, liberty, the pursuit of fulfillment of one’s sense of what s/he ought to be (“happiness”). This includes the young child, the unborn and more
An avalanche does not recognize a human right to life, a bolt of lightning does not recognize a human right to life, a volcano does not recognize a human right to life. As far as we can tell, only human beings acknowledge a human right to life and then try to argue an added authority for it by claiming the existence of a natural moral law in which such rights are grounded.
8] Eighth, like unto the seventh, such may only be circumscribed or limited for good cause. Such as, reciprocal obligation to cherish and not harm neighbour of equal, equally valuable nature in community and in the wider world of the common brotherhood of humanity.
If that's a roundabout way of saying that what are agreed to be universal human rights should not be lightly or easily abridged or repealed then I would agree.
9] Ninth, this is the context in which it becomes self evidently wrong, wicked and evil to kidnap, sexually torture and murder a young child or the like as concrete cases in point that show that might and/or manipulation do not make ‘right,’ ‘truth,’ ‘worth,’ ‘justice,’ ‘fairness,’ ‘law’ etc. That is, anything that expresses or implies the nihilist’s credo is morally absurd
I do not advocate or defend nihilism. However, I am always suspicious of any invocation of self-evidence as it seems to me it is all too often both a maneuver to avoid providing adequate warrant or justification for a claim and a way of implying some objective basis for a moral claim. We all agree that the torture and murder of a young child is one of the most abhorrent, wicked, evil acts imaginable. We also know that there are some other species in which the adults will, on occasion, kill and even eat the young. But while we might find that shocking and disgusting, we don't judge it to be wicked or evil. Following from that, is it too much of a stretch to envisage some highly-advanced alien race that would look upon the torture and murder of a human child with the same detachment as we look upon the behaviors of other animals? In other words, what is self-evident to us may not be so to others so are we justified in calling it self-evident?
10] Tenth, this entails that in civil society with government, justice is a principal task of legitimate government. In short, nihilistic will to power untempered by the primacy of justice is its own refutation in any type of state. Where, justice is the due balance of rights, freedoms and responsibilities.
The proper duty of government is to protect and uphold the interests and well-being of all the governed, which includes the provision of a fair and impartial system of justice.
11] Eleventh, that government is and ought to be subject to audit, reformation and if necessary replacement should it fail sufficiently badly and incorrigibly.
Agreed
12] Twelfth, the attempt to deny or dismiss such a general framework of moral governance invariably lands in shipwreck of incoherence and absurdity. As, has been seen in outline. But that does not mean that the attempt is not going to be made, so there is a mutual obligation of frank and fair correction and restraint of evil.
The problem is not over the value of a "general framework of moral governance" but over the source, legitimacy and authority of such a framework. Is it something we can and do create for ourselves as the potential subjects of such a framework or is it something that has to be outsourced to some other being or authority because some have such a low opinion of humanity as to believe we are not capable of such a thing ourselves?Seversky_{January 2, 2019
January
01
Jan
2
02
2019
07:15 PM
7
07
15
PM
PDT}

ET@40, this is the second time you have accused me of being Acartia bogart/William Spearshake, whoever they are. I assume the latter is a twist on Shakespear. The only thing I know about the former is that the first part of his name is a marine crustacean, and the second part was a famous actor. All I did was suggest that your argument was circular, which I think it is. Let’s step back and review: Steve said
I generally consider things to be evil if they involve deliberate harm or death.
A reasonable statement. For which you responded:
Most likely only because you were brought up in a like-minded society- a society founded on the principles of one of the major world religions
Another reasonable statement, but not supported with any evidence. I responded with:
That assumes that we were not gifted the ability to reason for ourselves and make informed decisions.
Which is a reasonable response. If we could reason for ourselves and make informed decisions, regardless of how we were brought up, is it not also likely that we would, on average, make decisions that were good for society? You then responded:
Quite the contrary. It assumes that because we are gifted with the ability to reason for ourselves and make informed decisions, that living organisms were intelligently designed and as such worthy of respect. Which would mean taking of a life should only be done after careful consideration.
Which is where your circular argument surfaced. If we were gifted with these capabilities, of course we were designed. That was implicit in my earlier statement.
That said, there aren’t any such gifts with respect to materialism.
Non-sequitur, as I am not a materialist. Frankly, I don’t know why you are so upset with what I said. We are both arguing the same thing, we are just disagreeing on when the design occurred. And, somewhere in there, BA77 said some things.Ed George_{January 2, 2019
January
01
Jan
2
02
2019
06:26 PM
6
06
26
PM
PDT}

Barry, That is not a question steve can google for an answer, although he tried. Please stop over-taxing your guests. ;)ET_{January 2, 2019
January
01
Jan
2
02
2019
06:10 PM
6
06
10
PM
PDT}

Barry.
So you believe the Holocaust was evil. Good for you. Is it possible for someone to disagree with you and be correct?
SteveH
To me the Holocaust is the epitome of what it means to be evil – as I understand it – so I it would not be possible for me to reconcile thier view with mine. That doesn’t make Morality absolute – nor does any number of other people agreeing with me.
Everyone noticed that you refused to state whether it is possible for someone to disagree with you and be correct. I will ask one more time. You believe the Holocaust was evil. Is it possible for someone to disagree with you and be correct?Barry Arrington_{January 2, 2019
January
01
Jan
2
02
2019
06:01 PM
6
06
01
PM
PDT}

The selective quoting of Ed George- I had posted the following in response to Ed's false claim that I used a circular argument: Whatever. Until you make your case you are clearly just trolling. Maybe you will catch an Acartia Bogart/ William spearshake- or any other one of your socks. Your continued cowardly claims of circular arguments is duly noted Good luck with that Ed, in all his glory, trimmed that down to: Your continued cowardly claims of circular arguments is duly noted, and responded with:
But not addressed.
It was addressed in the quote that you mined. This part: Whatever. Until you make your case you are clearly just trolling. Maybe you will catch an Acartia Bogart/ William spearshake- or any other one of your socks. Your other socks do the exact same thing...ET_{January 2, 2019
January
01
Jan
2
02
2019
04:49 PM
4
04
49
PM
PDT}

Ed George @ 38- Until you actually make a case there isn't anything to address. The "Hitchen's gambit" applies:
What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Dismissed. Come back if you ever have the courage to ante up.ET_{January 2, 2019
January
01
Jan
2
02
2019
04:43 PM
4
04
43
PM
PDT}

et
Your continued cowardly claims of circular arguments is duly noted.
But not addressed.Ed George_{January 2, 2019
January
01
Jan
2
02
2019
04:27 PM
4
04
27
PM
PDT}

ET at 35, agreed, he is just trolling,,,,,, reincarnated troll with a short life expectancy is my bet.bornagain77_{January 2, 2019
January
01
Jan
2
02
2019
04:25 PM
4
04
25
PM
PDT}

BA77@33, all I can say is, “read more”.Ed George_{January 2, 2019
January
01
Jan
2
02
2019
04:15 PM
4
04
15
PM
PDT}

Ed George @ 34- Whatever. Until you make your case you are clearly just trolling. Maybe you will catch an Acartia Bogart/ William spearshake- or any other one of your socks. Your continued cowardly claims of circular arguments is duly noted Good luck with thatET_{January 2, 2019
January
01
Jan
2
02
2019
04:15 PM
4
04
15
PM
PDT}

ET@31, sorry, but that doesn’t make any sense. You are making a circular argument.Ed George_{January 2, 2019
January
01
Jan
2
02
2019
04:12 PM
4
04
12
PM
PDT}

To provide further proof for the reality of morality, the following study establishes the objective reality of morality by showing that ‘Moral evaluations of harm are quote unquote 'instant and emotional':
Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional, brain study shows – November 29, 2012 Excerpt: People are able to detect, within a split second, if a hurtful action they are witnessing is intentional or accidental, new research on the brain at the University of Chicago shows. http://medicalxpress.com/news/2012-11-moral-instant-emotional-brain.html
Moreover, the following studies actually show that our moral intuition itself transcends space and time: Specifically, in the following study, They found that subjects responded strongly to emotional images compared to neutral images, and that the emotional response occurred between a fraction of a second to several seconds BEFORE the image appeared
Quantum Consciousness – Time Flies Backwards? – Stuart Hameroff MD Excerpt: Dean Radin and Dick Bierman have performed a number of experiments of emotional response in human subjects. The subjects view a computer screen on which appear (at randomly varying intervals) a series of images, some of which are emotionally neutral, and some of which are highly emotional (violent, sexual….). In Radin and Bierman’s early studies, skin conductance of a finger was used to measure physiological response They found that subjects responded strongly to emotional images compared to neutral images, and that the emotional response occurred between a fraction of a second to several seconds BEFORE the image appeared! Recently Professor Bierman (University of Amsterdam) repeated these experiments with subjects in an fMRI brain imager and found emotional responses in brain activity up to 4 seconds before the stimuli. Moreover he looked at raw data from other laboratories and found similar emotional responses before stimuli appeared. http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/views/TimeFlies.html
And in the following meta-analysis of 26 reports published between 1978 and 2010, the researchers found that your body can anticipate morally troubling situations between two and 10 seconds before it happens
Can Your Body Sense Future Events Without Any External Clue? (meta-analysis of 26 reports published between 1978 and 2010) - (Oct. 22, 2012) Excerpt: "A person playing a video game at work while wearing headphones, for example, can't hear when his or her boss is coming around the corner. But our analysis suggests that if you were tuned into your body, you might be able to detect these anticipatory changes between two and 10 seconds beforehand,,, This phenomenon is sometimes called "presentiment," as in "sensing the future," but Mossbridge said she and other researchers are not sure whether people are really sensing the future. "I like to call the phenomenon 'anomalous anticipatory activity,'" she said. "The phenomenon is anomalous, some scientists argue, because we can't explain it using present-day understanding about how biology works; though explanations related to recent quantum biological findings could potentially make sense. It's anticipatory because it seems to predict future physiological changes in response to an important event without any known clues, and it's an activity because it consists of changes in the cardiopulmonary, skin and nervous systems." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121022145342.htm
Moreover, in the preceding paper one of the researchers remarked that 'we can't explain (the anticipatory activity of the body) using present-day understanding about how biology works; though explanations related to recent quantum biological findings could potentially make sense.'… And, exactly as she thought, quantum biological findings do indeed shed light how it might be possible for the body to anticipate morally troubling situations before they happen. In fact, as this following video shows,,
Darwinian Materialism vs Quantum Biology - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHdD2Am1g5Y
,,,findings in quantum biology go much further and gives us strong physical evidence that humans possess a transcendent component to their being on the molecular level that is not reducible to materialistic explanations.
Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory – 29 October 2012 Excerpt: “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,” http://www.quantumlah.org/highlight/121029_hidden_influences.php
That is to say, findings from quantum biology now give us experimental evidence strongly suggesting we do indeed have a transcendent 'soul' that is capable of living beyond the death of our material bodies just as Christians have held all along. And finally, the atheist's denial is far broader than just their denial of objective morality. On top of denying objective morality, the atheist also denies that our lives have any objective Meaning, Value or Purpose.
Atheistic Materialism vs Meaning, Value, and Purpose in Our Lives - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqUxBSbFhog
And again, the fact that atheists themselves live their lives as if their lives actually did have Meaning, Value, and Purpose is proof that the atheist's claim is false: i.e. that their denial "is actually an exercise in self-delusion"
The Absurdity of Life without God - William Lane Craig Excerpt: Meaning of Life Without God, there can be no objective meaning in life. Sartre's program is actually an exercise in self-delusion. Sartre is really saying, "Let's pretend the universe has meaning." And this is just fooling ourselves. The point is this: if God does not exist, then life is objectively meaningless; but man cannot live consistently and happily knowing that life is meaningless; so in order to be happy he pretends life has meaning. But this is, of course, entirely inconsistent—for without God, man and the universe are without any real significance. https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/existence-nature-of-god/the-absurdity-of-life-without-god/
Bottom line, the atheist's worldview suffers catastrophic failure on both the philosophical and empirical fronts. Whereas Theism is, once again, sitting rather nicely in regards to both. Frankly, I have no clue what atheists find so appealing about their Nihilistic, hopeless, worldview, It is much like a man being offered unlimited riches but he chooses instead to live in a sewer. Verse:
1 Corinthians 2:9 But just as it is written, “Things that no eye has seen, or ear heard, or mind imagined, are the things God has prepared for those who love him.”
bornagain77_{January 2, 2019
January
01
Jan
2
02
2019
04:07 PM
4
04
07
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply